The (Chosen) People vs. Ernst Zundel – Taki’s Magazine

Ernst Zundel

In the forty-year battle between Ernst Zundel and the Jews, I think we can finally declare a winner. Hold on to your hats, folks, because the end result is a real shocker. In Harry Caray voice: Jews win! Jews win!

Zundel, for those of you who dont know, is a 78-year-old Holocaust denier and Hitler-lover. And when I say Hitler-lover, Im not using the term the way leftists do when referring to anyone slightly to the right of the Weather Underground. The living room of Zundels former home in Pigeon Forge, Tenn., is adorned with a painting of Hitler and Zundel hugging like father and son. Now, thats Hitler-lovin! Zundel sincerely believes Der Fhrer got a bum rap. How could this dog-loving, nonsmoking vegetarian have killed anyone? Zundel has made it his lifes goal to rehabilitate Hitlers image. Its a fools quest. In a rational world, there would never have been a reason for Ernst Zundel to be the topic of a column in The Washington Post by one of the nations finest constitutional scholars. Indeed, the very suggestion of such a thing would be laughable. But it happened, and if Zundels legal travails are important enough to be examined by the WaPos Prof. Eugene Volokh, theyre certainly important enough for this column.

But before we get to todays paper, lets take a look at yesterdays news.

German-born Ernst Zundel immigrated to Canada when he was a teenager. A graphic artist by profession, the adult Zundel spent several decades buzzing around Ontario as a mostly ignored political gadfly, battling negative stereotypes and discrimination against German immigrants (in other words, he was an SJW). In the 1970s, it was revealed that this SJW was actually an SSJW when a local reporter exposed Zundels true passionpublishing pamphlets that praised Hitler and denied the Holocaust.

So, what to do with a guy churning out dime-store Hitler porn, back in the days when there was no internet to allow the neighborhood kook to spread his ideas beyond his own little mailing list? In a sane country, such a man would be ignored. But when it comes to free speech, Canada is about as sane as its favorite immigrant, Vince Li. Canada, egged on incessantly by Canadian Jewish organizations, decided that the best way to deal with the Zundel menace was to give it international publicity, and to give Zundel an unheard-of gift: the ability to grill Holocaust historians and survivors on the witness stand, forcing them, under oath, to cop to errors, omissions, and exaggerations.

Take a moment to wrap your head around that. Canadian authorities and Jewish groups thought Zundel was such a menace, they gave him a one-of-a-kind opportunity to spread his theories and humiliate his opponents.

In attempting to silence Holocaust denial, Jewish groups gave it a megaphone.

My Vince Li comparison doesnt sound so far-fetched now, does it?

Twice in the 1980s, the Canucks put Zundel on trial for spreading false news. This, as much as anything else, is what put Holocaust denial on the map. As I wrote in my book, in a section titled Blame Canada,

The Zundel team was able to grill Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg, who was forced to admit, under cross-examination, that there had never been a plan for what he called the policy of the extermination of the Jews. He was forced to admit that he had never physically studied the remains of the gas chambers at Auschwitz or Majdanek. He admitted that Holocaust revisionism aids historians by challenging their beliefs and bringing about the discovery of new information, and, most startlingly, he admitted the existence of a reliable Nazi document stating that Hitler had decided to put off any decision about the final solution until after the war.

Auschwitz survivor Arnold Friedman was forced to confess that he had never seen any gas chambers at Auschwitz, and that the stories he wrote about were based on rumors that others had told him. And famed Auschwitz survivor and escapee Rudolf Vrba admitted on the stand that his account of what he saw at Auschwitz was actually an artistic picture, not factual evidence. His eyewitness testimony regarding the gas chamber? Its what I heard it might look like.

Zundel was convicted, but his conviction was overturned on appeal. So guess what? The damn puckheads put him on trial again! Both Zundel trials were breathlessly covered by the Canadian and international press. In the end, Zundel won out. His second conviction was overturned by the Canadian Supreme Court (and the false news law was declared unconstitutional). Zundel was not only free but also an international celebrity. A hated one, to be sure. But a celeb all the same.

Following Zundels courtroom victory, Canadian Jewish organizations continued to press the government to find some other way to shut him up. As Zundel had landed only immigrant status in Canada (his attempts to become a citizen had been repeatedly shot down over the years), he decided to throw in the towel and move to the States to live with his equally nutty wife, Ingrid, an American citizen. During this time, the German government, egged on by (wait for it) Jewish organizations, issued a warrant for Zundels arrest. The charge? Denial material he posted on his websitewhile in Tennessee. The German legal theory was that since the internet brought Zundels words into German territory, and since Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany, Zundel had committed a crime on German soil no differently than if hed strangled a guy in Munich.

Of course, free-speech advocates the world over rose up in outrage over such a draconian affront to speech rights. Oh wait, no. Free-speech advocates the world over pursed their lips like Don Knotts and ran away. Well done, free-speech advocates the world over. Well done.

After three years of living peacefully in the U.S., Zundel was dragged from his home in 2003, accused of violating his visa (a charge later questioned by a district court judge in Knoxville). U.S. authorities shipped him back to Toronto, where the Canadians promptly tossed him into a 6-by-8-foot isolation cellfor two years. Post-9/11 laws had given the Canadian government new powers to indefinitely detain people without charge; no need for a trial this time! In 2005, I arranged an interview with The Hamilton Spectators Bill Dunphy (a longtime Zundel foe), who straight-out stated that Zundels appalling treatment resulted from political pressure from groups that are opposed to Zundel and his ideology (i.e., Jewish organizations). Dunphy admitted that these groups demanded Zundel be locked away, and the government acquiesced.

And as Zundel languished in a tomblike cell for denying a past genocide, former Rwandan ruling-party strongman Leon Mugesera, an actual perpetrator of a present-day genocide, was not only allowed to walk free, he even got a teaching job at a prestigious Quebec university (because, from Jim Carrey to Tom Green, Canadians have always loved absurdity).

After two years of what can pretty much only be described as torture (his cell lights were never dimmed, he was allowed no hot food, he was deprived of medicine), Zundel was shipped to Germany, where he was immediately declared a security risk and put in yet another cell without bail as a flight risk. See the logic there? Bring a guy against his will into your country, declare that you dont want him there, and then imprison him because youre afraid hell leave.

Zundel was sentenced to five years imprisonment for the stuff he legally posted while legally residing in the U.S. The sentence was cheered by (here we go again) Jewish organizations, and, as before, free-speech advocates the world over remained silent.

Zundel was released in 2010, a tired, sickly, broken man. Yay, we got im!

So why was Zundel in The Washington Post last week? Well, leave it to the exceptionally fair-minded UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh (who Ive previously interviewed for this column on an unrelated matter) to dare to examine the legality of Zundels latest nad-kick. Zundel, now 78, had sought to return to the U.S. to join his 80-year-old wife (she cant join him in Germany, because her ideas traveled to Germany and committed crimes too). Volokhs column deserves to be read in full. The short version is, Homeland Security denied the request, stating:

A foreign conviction can be the basis for a finding of inadmissibility only where the conviction is for conduct which is deemed criminal by United States standards.

Volokh points out what should be obvious (but, of course, isnt) to any rational American:

But as best I can tell from press accounts, Zundels speech that formed the basis of his German conviction would not have been deemed criminal by United States standards. Denying the Holocaust and expressing anti-Semitic sentiments is just not a crime under American law. Indeed, it cant be made a crime, given the First Amendment.

Volokh concludes that the ruling appears to have been a violation of American immigration law.

Now, heres where Im gonna lose a few readers. One might be tempted to think that the repeated involvement of Jewish organizations, in multiple countries, in the persecution of Ernst Zundel indicates the presence of some vast international conspiracythe Jewish octopus of anti-Semitic lore. But no, Im actually suggesting the opposite. Jewish advocates were able to get their way regarding Zundel because no one on earth gives a shit about him. When Jews whined, Give us Zundel, it was a very cheap and painless bone to throw them to shut them up. Bully Jews picked on a nobody, and politicians, who never give a damn about nobodies anyway, happily threw him under the bus to stop the kvetching.

But, my Jewish brider, look what the war on Zundel wrought. Holocaust denial was put on the map, and Zundel became an international figure of note. Was it worth it, going after this rotund little bald man? Is it still worth it? Yes, its a victory in that Zundel is finished. Hell probably die soon, and Jews can dance on his grave. Satisfied? But in a broader sense, it was a terrible defeat, in terms of what Zundels bullies were hoping to accomplish versus what they actually did. In attempting to silence Holocaust denial, Jewish groups gave it a megaphone. Worse still, in trying to squash a man who spreads Jewish conspiracy theories, Jews acted just like the vengeful, world-controlling puppeteers Zundel portrays them as. In trying to suppress Zundels crude stereotypes, Jews ended up personifying them.

This is Jewrys Appointment in Samarra, the old fable in which a man, seeking to flee the Reaper, ends up riding straight toward him. The moral of the tale is that sometimes, in our blind desire to avoid an unpleasant fate, we end up bringing it about ourselves.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work,

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."